Validation study on the Ocular Irritection® assay for eye irritation testing

Validation study for in vitro skin irritation test using reconstructed human skin equivalents constructed by layer-by-layer cell coating technology

The aim of this study is to validate an in vitro skin irritation test (SIT) using three-dimensional reconstructed human epidermal (RhE) skin equivalents prepared by layer-by-layer (LbL) method (LbL-3D Skin) in a series of interlaboratory studies. The goal of these validation studies is to evaluate the ability of this in vitro test to reliably discriminate skin irritant from nonirritant chemicals, as defined by OECD and UN GHS. This me-too validation study is to assess the within- and between-laboratory reproducibility, as well as the predictive capacity, of the LbL-3D Skin SIT in accordance with performance standards for OECD TG 439. The developed skin model, LbL-3D Skin had a highly differentiated epidermis and dermis, similar to the validated reference methods (VRM) and native human skin. The quality parameters (cell survival in controls, tissue integrity, and barrier function) were similar to VRM and in accordance with OECD TG 439. The LbL-3D Skin SIT validation study was performed by three participating laboratories and consisted of three independent tests using 20 reference chemicals. The results obtained with the LbL-3D Skin demonstrated high within-laboratory and between-laboratory reproducibility, as well as high accuracy for use as a stand-alone assay to distinguish skin irritants from nonirritants. The predictive potency of LbL-3D Skin SIT using total 54 test chemicals were comparable to those in other RhE models in OECD TG 439. The validation study demonstrated that LbL-3D Skin has proven to be a robust and reliable method for predicting skin irritation.

An overview of current alternative models in the context of ocular surface toxicity

The 21st century has seen a steadily increasing social awareness of animal suffering, with increased attention to ethical considerations. Developing new integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA) strategies is an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) goal to reduce animal testing. Currently, there is a lack of alternative models to test for ocular surface toxicity (aside from irritation) in lieu of the Draize eye irritation test (OECD guideline No. 405) performed in rabbits. Five alternative in vitro or ex vivo methods have been validated to replace this reference test, but only in combination. However, pathologies like Toxicity-Induced Dry Eye (TIDE), cataract, glaucoma, and neuropathic pain can occur after exposure to a pharmaceutical product or chemical and therefore need to be anticipated. To do so, new models of lacrimal glands, lens, and neurons innervating epithelia are required. These models must take into account real-life exposure (dose, time, and tear film clearance). The scientific community is working hard to develop new, robust, alternative, in silico, and in vitro models, while attempting to balance ethics and availability of biological materials. This review provides a broad overview of the validated methods for analyzing ocular irritation and those still used by some industries, as well as promising models that need to be optimized according to the OECD. Finally, we give an overview of recently developed innovative models, which could become new tools in the evaluation of ocular surface toxicity within the scope of IATAs.

Human-relevant approaches to assess eye corrosion/irritation potential of agrochemical formulations

There are multiple in vitro and ex vivo eye irritation and corrosion test methods that are available as internationally harmonized test guidelines for regulatory use. Despite their demonstrated usefulness to a broad range of substances through inter-laboratory validation studies, they have not been widely adopted for testing agrochemical formulations due to a lack of concordance with parallel results from the traditional regulatory test method for this endpoint, the rabbit eye test. The inherent variability of the rabbit test, differences in the anatomy of the rabbit and human eyes, and differences in modelling exposures in rabbit eyes relative to human eyes contribute to this lack of concordance. Ultimately, the regulatory purpose for these tests is protection of human health, and, thus, there is a need for a testing approach based on human biology. This paper reviews the available in vivo, in vitro and ex vivo test methods with respect to their relevance to human ocular anatomy, anticipated exposure scenarios, and the mechanisms of eye irritation/corrosion in humans. Each of the in vitro and ex vivo methods described is generally appropriate for identifying non-irritants. To discriminate among eye irritants, the human three-dimensional epithelial and full thickness corneal models provide the most detailed information about the severity of irritation. Consideration of the mechanisms of eye irritation, and the strengths and limitations of the in vivo, in vitro and ex vivo test methods, show that the in vitro/ex vivo methods are as or more reflective of human biology and less variable than the currently used rabbit approach. Suggestions are made for further optimizing the most promising methods to distinguish between severe (corrosive), moderate, mild and non-irritants and provide information about the reversibility of effects. Also considered is the utility of including additional information (e.g. physical chemical properties), consistent with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's guidance document on an integrated approach to testing and assessment of potential eye irritation. Combining structural and functional information about a test substance with test results from human-relevant methods will ensure the best protection of humans following accidental eye exposure to agrochemicals.

Same-chemical comparison of nonanimal eye irritation test methods: Bovine corneal opacity and permeability, EpiOcular™, isolated chicken eye, ocular Irritection®, OptiSafe™, and short time exposure

The testing and classification of chemicals to determine adverse ocular effects are routinely conducted to ensure that materials are appropriately classified, labeled, and meet regulatory and safety guidelines. We have performed a same-chemical analysis using publicly available validation study results and compared the performance between tests for the same chemicals. To normalize for chemical selection, we matched chemicals tested by pairs of tests so that each matched set compared performance for the exact same chemicals. Same-chemical accuracy comparisons demonstrate a chemical selection effect that results in a wide range of overlapping false-positive (FP) rates and accuracies for all test methods. In addition, the analysis suggests that a tiered-testing strategy with specific combinations of tests can reduce the FP rate for some combinations. However, reductions in the FP rates were typically accompanied by an increase in the false-negative rates, resulting in minimal advantage in terms of accuracy. In addition, actual improvements in the FP rate after retesting positives with a second test are not as good as the theoretical improvements because some chemicals and functional groups appear to be broadly misclassified by all test methods, which, to the extent the tests make the same-chemical misclassifications, reduces the advantage of using tiered-testing strategies.

A proposal for a new in vitro method for direct classification of eye irritants by cytotoxicity test - Preliminary study

None of the in vitro method are suitable for directly classifying of a substance as an eye irritant (category 2). They can classify substance as category 1 (serious eye damage) or as "no category" (not requiring classification). The aim of this study was to develop a new method for direct classification of a substance as category 2. Cytotoxicity Assay to Assess Eye Irritation (CEI) was performed on fibroblast - HDFn cell line with 36 substances. 5 concentrations of all substances and neat substances were applied directly to the cells. After 30 min, medium was added and cells were incubated at 37 °C. The next day, the cytotoxicity assay was performed (MTT assay in the first run and NRU assay in the second run). Based on viability and IC50 value (concentration with 50 % viability) a substance could be classified in category 2, category 1, and as "no category". The results obtained were referred to ECHA database. This new method had high sensitivity (53.8-88.9 %), specificity (73.9-100.0 %) and accuracy (69.4-88.9 %) in the classification to all categories. It effectively classifies not only substances in category 2 but also in category 1 and substances that do not require classification.

Validation of the OptiSafe™ eye irritation test

PURPOSE

OptiSafe is an in chemico test method that identifies potential eye irritants based on macromolecular damage following test chemical exposure. The OptiSafe protocol includes a prescreen assessment that identifies test chemicals that are outside the applicability domain of the test method and thus determines the optimal procedure. We assessed the usefulness and limitations of the OptiSafe test method for identifying chemicals not requiring classification for ocular irritation (i.e. bottom-up testing strategy).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen chemicals were selected by the lead laboratory and tested as an independent study. Ninety-five unique coded chemicals were selected by a validation management team to assess the intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility and accuracy of OptiSafe in a multilaboratory, three-phased validation study. Three laboratories (lead laboratory and two naïve laboratories) evaluated 35 chemicals, with the remaining 60 chemicals evaluated by the lead laboratory only. Test method performance was assessed by comparing classifications based on OptiSafe results to classifications based on available retrospective in vivo data, using both the EPA and GHS eye irritation hazard classification systems. No prospective in vivo testing was conducted.

RESULTS

Phase I testing of five chemicals showed that the method could be transferred to naïve laboratories; within-lab reproducibility ranged from 93% to 100% for both classification systems. Thirty coded chemicals were evaluated in Phase II of the validation study to demonstrate both intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility. Intralaboratory reproducibility for both EPA and GHS classification systems for Phase II of the validation study ranged from 93% to 99%, while interlaboratory reproducibility was 91% for both systems. Test method accuracy for the EPA and GHS classification systems based on results from individual laboratories ranged from 82% to 88% and from 78% to 88%, respectively, among the three laboratories; false negative rates ranged from 0% to 7% (EPA) and 0% to 15% (GHS). When results across all three laboratories were combined based on the majority classification, test method accuracy and false negative rates were 89% and 0%, respectively, for both classification systems, while false positive rates were 25% and 23% for the EPA and GHS classification systems, respectively. Validation study Phase III evaluation of an additional 60 chemicals by the lead laboratory provided a comprehensive assessment of test method accuracy and defined the applicability domain of the method. Based on chemicals tested in Phases II and III by the lead laboratory, test method accuracy was 83% and 79% for the EPA and GHS classification systems, respectively; false negative rates were 4% (EPA) and 0% (GHS); and false positive rates were 40% (EPA) and 42% (GHS). Potential causes of false positives in certain chemical (e.g. ethers and alcohols) or hazard classes are being further investigated.

CONCLUSION

The OptiSafe test method is useful for identifying nonsurfactant substances not requiring classification for ocular irritancy. OptiSafe represents a new tool for the in vitro assessment of ocular toxicity in a tiered-testing strategy where chemicals can be initially tested and identified as not requiring hazard classification.

Determining the Depth of Injury in Bioengineered Tissue Models of Cornea and Conjunctiva for the Prediction of All Three Ocular GHS Categories

The depth of injury (DOI) is a mechanistic correlate to the ocular irritation response. Attempts to quantitatively determine the DOI in alternative tests have been limited to exvivo animal eyes by fluorescent staining for biomarkers of cell death and viability in histological cross sections. It was the purpose of this study to assess whether DOI could also be measured by means of cell viability detected by the MTT assay using 3-dimensional (3D) reconstructed models of cornea and conjunctiva. The formazan-free area of metabolically inactive cells in the tissue after topical substance application is used as the visible correlate of the DOI. Areas of metabolically active or inactive cells are quantitatively analyzed on cryosection images with ImageJ software analysis tools. By incorporating the total tissue thickness, the relative MTT-DOI (rMTT-DOI) was calculated. Using the rMTT-DOI and human reconstructed cornea equivalents, we developed a prediction model based on suitable viability cut-off values. We tested 25 chemicals that cover the whole range of eye irritation potential based on the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). Principally, the MTT-DOI test method allows distinguishing between the cytotoxic effects of the different chemicals in accordance with all 3 GHS categories for eye irritation. Although the prediction model is slightly over-predictive with respect to non-irritants, it promises to be highly valuable to discriminate between severe irritants (Cat. 1), and mild to moderate irritants (Cat. 2). We also tested 3D conjunctiva models with the aim to specifically address conjunctiva-damaging substances. Using the MTT-DOI method in this model delivers comparable results as the cornea model, but does not add additional information. However, the MTT-DOI method using reconstructed cornea models already provided good predictability that was superior to the already existing established invitro/exvivo methods.